The Issue The issue in these two consolidated cases is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Luis J. Marti, M. D., hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Marti," and/or Jesus Escar, M.D., hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Escar," based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, contained in the separate Administrative Complaints filed against each of the Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties; on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing; I make the following findings of fact. Respondent Escar is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0034247. Respondent Escar's last known address is 935 West 49th Street, Suite #107, Hialeah; Florida 33012. Respondent Marti is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0034842. Respondent Marti's last known address is 24355 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33125. Respondent Marti went to medical school in Madrid, Spain. In approximately 1970, while Respondent Marti was in medical school in Madrid, Spain, Respondent Marti met Jose A. Tudela for the first time. At the time, Tudela had come to Madrid, Spain, for the purposes of starting medical school. In approximately 1975, while Respondent Marti was working as a resident at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, Respondent Marti again saw Jose A. Tudela. At about the same time, Respondent Escar met Tudela for the first time. Tudela's father, Francisco Tudela, a physician, was an attending physician at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital. Respondents Marti and Escar saw Jose and Francisco Tudela in 1975 while on rounds at the hospital. In 1979, while Respondents Marti and Escar were working at Palm Springs General Hospital, Jose A. Tudela came to the hospital to apply for a position as a house physician and saw Respondents Escar and Marti. When Tudela applied for the position of house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital, Respondents Marti and Escar were both residents at the hospital. On the day that Jose A. Tudela came to apply for the position of house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital, Tudela came to the doctors' lounge at the hospital where he spoke with Respondents Escar and Marti. Tudela had with him a diploma which appeared to Respondents Escar and Marti to be authentic and which appeared to have been issued by the Universidad Central del Este. The diploma had on the back what appeared to be official stamps and seals and the signature of the Vice Consul of the United States. Additionally, a translation of the diploma was attached to the diploma. On the date that Tudela came to apply for the position of house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital, Tudela also showed Respondents Escar and Marti what appeared to be a transcript of his grades from the Universidad Central del Este and a letter purportedly from one Victoria Marcial de Gomez. The transcript and letter appeared to Respondents Escar and Marti to be original and authentic. The letter from Gomez, who purportedly was the medical director for the health center of Trujillo Alto Health Department, in the associated Free State of Puerto Rico, appeared to verify the fact that Dr. Jose A. Tudela had worked in the Health Center of Trujillo Alto for seven months. When Respondent Marti reviewed Tudela's documents, he knew it was important that foreign papers be certified because he had had the experience of having to leave Cuba and re-establish himself. Respondent Marti's own diplomas from Spain bear attestations of notarization of a foreign government. Respondent Escar believed that Tudela's documents were originals because of his experience in having seen similar original documents of other residents in the past. On or about August 1, 1979, Jose A. Tudela completed an application for employment as a house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital. The application contained basic personal information about Tudela and listed some of Tudela's education and work experience. According to the application, Tudela went to Belle Glade High School, in Belle Glade; Florida; Warwick High School, in Newport News, Virginia, where he graduated in 1965; and the University of Miami; in Coral Gables, Florida where he graduated in 1970. According to the application, Tudela worked in an unspecified capacity in the Centro de Salud, in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, from 1978 to 1979. The application form does not contain any information about Tudela's medical education. Specifically, it does not contain any mention of University of Santo Domingo, Universidad Central del Este, or U.C.E. On or about August 8, 1979, Jose A. Tudela was employed by Palm Springs General Hospital as a house physician. Jose A. Tudela remained at Palm Springs General Hospital as a house physician until October 29, 1979. Tudela left Palm Springs General Hospital on that date to become a surgical assistant at Miami Children's Hospital. While employed a Miami Children's Hospital, Tudela received the highest score on every item on his employee evaluation form. That hospital never knew of any problem with Tudela's performance or credentials until this case occurred. Between approximately 1979 and 1983, Respondents Escar and Marti practiced medicine together as partners. In 1980, Jose A. Tudela approached Respondent Marti and asked Respondent Marti to sign an affidavit on behalf of Tudela. Therefore, on or about March 13, 1980, Respondent Marti signed a Form B-1 which was addressed to Rafael A. Penalver, M.D., Director, Office of International Medical Education, University of Miami School of Medicine; Miami; Florida. The form B-1 contained the following sworn statement: This is to certify that Jose A. Tudela born in Cuba and a graduate from the University Santo Domingo on 1978 was legally engaged in the practice of medicine from ---- to in Puerto Rico. I have known the applicant since 1975 and was acquainted with him/her during the time he practiced medicine. I was algo (sic) engaged in the practice of medicine in Miami U.S.A. during the years of 1975 and up. At some time after Respondent Marti signed the Form B-1, the abbreviation "(U.C.E.)" was added to the above-referenced sworn statement after the school name, "University Santo Domingo." Respondent Marti did not place the quoted abbreviation on the Form B-1. Prior to signing the subject Form B-1, Respondent Marti reviewed, for verification purposes, the employment application of Jose A. Tudela for Tudela's employment as a house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital. However, the employment application in question does not reflect any attendance by Tudela at any educational institution in the Dominican Republic or Santo Domingo. Furthermore, the employment application does not indicate the capacity in which Tudela worked in the Centro Salud in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, and does not specifically indicate that Tudela practiced medicine in Puerto Rico. In 1980, Jose A. Tudela also approached Respondent Escar and asked Respondent Escar to sign an affidavit for him. Therefore, on or about March 13, 1980, Respondent Escar signed a Form B-1 which contained the following sworn statement: This is to certify that Jose A. Tudela born in Cuba and a graduate from the University of Santo Domingo on 1978 was legally engaged in the practice of medicine from ---- to in Puerto Rico. I have known the applicant since 1970 and was acquainted with him/her during the time he practiced medicine. I was algo (sic) engaged in the practice of medicine in Miami, Fla during the years of 1977 and up. The Form B-1 was addressed to Rafael A. Penalver, M.D., Director; Office of International Medical Education, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. At some time after Respondent Escar signed the Form B-1, the abbreviation "(U.C.E.)" was added to the above-referenced sworn statement after the school name, "University of Santo Domingo." Respondent Escar did not place the quoted abbreviation on the Form B-1. Respondent Escar relied upon Respondent Marti's verification of Tudela's background information in signing the Form B-1 described in the immediately preceding paragraph. Respondent Escar did not personally review Tudela's application for employment at Palm Springs General Hospital but discussed the information contained in the employment application with Respondent Marti. At the time Respondents Marti and Escar signed the Forms B-1, they did not know Tudela very well and did not know very much about his background. Although they both thought Tudela was probably a graduate of a medical school, they did not remember what school he had supposedly graduated from, as evidenced by the fact that they put the wrong school name on the Forms B- 1. Both Respondent Escar and Respondent Marti lacked personal knowledge of the information contained in the Forms B-1 which they signed for Jose A. Tudela. Neither of the Respondents saw or taught Tudela at medical school in the Dominican Republic. Furthermore, neither Respondent Escar nor Respondent Marti was in Puerto Rico at the time Jose A. Tudela allegedly practiced medicine at the Centro Salud in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico. Neither of the Respondents had any source of information about Tudela's alleged medical education in the Dominican Republic or his alleged practice of medicine in Puerto Rico other than statements Tudela may have made to them, statements Tudela wrote on the application form at Palm Springs General Hospital, and whatever information could be gleaned from a casual review of Tudela's forged credentials. Jose A. Tudela has never graduated from the Universidad Central del Este, which is located in the Dominican Republic, nor from any other medical school. Tudela enrolled in the Universidad Central del Este (U.C.E.) medical school in August, 1977. There is no evidence in the school records for U.C.E. that Tudela passed any of his courses. In May of 1978 Tudela was no longer at the university. Tudela was given a special concession at U.C.E. so that upon presentation of a pre-medical certificate which Tudela claimed to possess, Tudela could receive credit for the pre-medical program training. However, Tudela never presented the required proof of his pre-medical program. Tudela did not complete any of the twelve semesters at U.C.E. which make up the medical degree program including pre-medical training. Although Respondent Marti first met Tudela in 1970 and Respondent Escar met him in 1975, the Form B-1 signed by Respondent Marti states that he met Tudela in 1975, and the one signed by Respondent Escar states that he met Tudela in 1970. The reason for this error is that both of the forms were prepared by Respondent Marti and the forms were inadvertently switched at the time they were signed. The Forms B-1 signed by Respondents Marti and Escar were submitted to the Board of Medical Examiners by Jose A. Tudela as attachments to an Application for Continuing Medical Education Program, which was submitted as part of Tudela's application for licensure as a physician in Florida. Tudela applied for licensure in Florida under the provisions of a special law which provided that the Board of Medical Examiners would establish continuing education courses designed to qualify for licensure those individuals who were resident nationals of the Republic of Cuba and were residents of Florida on July 1, 1977. In order to qualify for the continuing education program set up by the Board of Medical Examiners for Cuban nationals, an applicant had to demonstrate that he was a graduate from a medical school with a medical degree and that he was a resident national of the Republic of Cuba and a resident of Florida on July 1, 1977. Upon approval of the applicant to participate in the continuing education program set up by the Board of Medical Examiners, the applicant would have to complete the continuing education program. Upon completion of the continuing education program, the applicant would be qualified to take the licensing examination. In or about March of 1980, Tudela submitted an Application for Examination, an Application for Florida State Board of Medical Examiners Continuing Education Program, and the necessary attachments, which included the Forms B-1 signed by Respondents Escar and Marti and copies of what purported to be his diploma and transcript of grades. After successfully completing the continuing medical education program and the licensure examination, Tudela became certified to practice medicine and surgery by the Board of Medical Examiners on August 23, 1982. At the time of Tudela's application for medical license, the staff of the Board of Medical Examiners conducted the initial review and made the initial determination as to whether an individual was qualified to take the continuing education course and to take the licensure examination for certification to practice medicine and surgery in Florida. In making such determinations, consideration is given to all of the information contained in an applicant's file, which includes such things as the applicant's degree or diploma, transcript of grades, and the Forms B-1. At the time Tudela applied for licensure, the staff of the Board of Medical Examiners did not verify the medical education of applicants and conducted no investigation into the school or the graduation of applicants for licensure. Prior to approving Tudela's application, neither the Board members nor the staff independently contacted the Universidad Central del Este to verify whether Tudela actually graduated from medical school. The Board members did not personally review Tudela's application. The staff reviewed the papers and presented the Board with a list of applicants who appeared to be eligible for the continuing education course and the licensure examination. The diploma and the transcript of grades which Tudela showed to the Respondents and filed with the Board of Medical Examiners are forgeries. They are very good forgeries and bear a remarkable resemblance to genuine diplomas and transcripts issued by the Universidad Central del Este. The false documents provided by Tudela to the Board as part of his application, along with the Forms B-1 signed by Respondents Marti and Escar, deceived the staff into recommending Tudela for the continuing education course, the licensure exam, and ultimately for certification to practice medicine. Tudela's application to the Board also contains several letters of recommendation from other physicians who were convinced of Tudela's competence. The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates granted Tudela a certificate despite his forged documents. In November 1984, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Jose A. Tudela which alleged that Tudela did not graduate from or obtain a degree of Doctor of Medicine from U.C.E., contrary to what Tudela had indicated in his application for licensure examination described above. In March 1985, the Board of Medical Examiners entered an order accepting the surrender for revocation of Jose A. Tudela's license to practice medicine in lieu of further prosecution of the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint which had been filed in November 1984. Tudela is not currently licensed as a physician in the state of Florida. No further action was taken against him for his having fraudulently obtained a medical license in Florida. Respondents Escar and Marti were both aware of the fact that the Forms B-1 which they signed were to be submitted as part of the application for the continuing medical education program which had been established by the Board of Medical Examiners for Cuban nationals as a prerequisite to take the licensure examination. In fact; Respondent Marti became eligible to take the medical licensure examination in Florida by completing the same continuing medical education program. When the Respondents Escar and Marti signed the subject Forms B-1, neither of them had any personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the statements therein regarding Tudela's medical education and experience; yet they deliberately certified, under oath, to the truthfulness of matters about which they were distinctly uninformed. When the Respondents Escar and Marti signed the subject Forms B-1, both of them knew the purpose of the forms and both knew that the Board of Medical Examiners would rely on the information in the forms.
Findings Of Fact In the November 27, 1985 edition of The Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 11, Number 48, the Board noticed Proposed Rules 21G-14.001(7) and 21G-14.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, which were timely challenged by petitioner and which provide as follows: 21G-14.001 Definitions. * * * (7) Office team approach - A methodology employed by a dentist in the administration of general anesthesia and parenteral conscious sedation whereby the dentist may use one or more qualified anesthetic auxiliaries who, working under the direct supervision of the dentists assist the dentist, and assist in emergency care of the patient. 21G-14.005 Application for Permit. (1) No dentist shall administer or super- vise the administration of general anesthesia, or parenteral conscious sedation in a dental office for dental patients, unless such dentist possesses a permit issued by the Board. The dentist holding such a permit shall be subject to review and such permit must be renewed biennially. The cited statutory authority for these proposed rules includes Sections 466.004(3) and 466.017(3), Florida Statutes. Parenteral conscious sedation is defined by proposed Rule 210-14.001(6), which is not challenged in this case, as 21G-14.001 Definitions. * * * (6) Parenteral conscious sedation - A depressed level of consciousness produced by the parenteral administration of pharma- cologic substances, that retains the patient's ability to independently and continuously maintain an airway and respond appropriately to physical stimulation or verbal command. This modality includes administration of medications via all parenteral routes, that is: intravenous, intramuscular, subcutaneous, submucosal, or inhalation. A patient who is receiving parenteral conscious sedation will frequently slip in and out of consciousness, or a state of general anesthesia. General dentists do not receive adequate training in undergraduate dental school in the administration of general anesthesia and the treatment of medical emergencies which may result there from, and are not qualified to administer general anesthesia or treat resulting medical emergencies. The evidence is undisputed that a dentist who lacks the additional training in general anethesia and parenteral conscious sedation, which would be required under these rules, is not capable of competently and safely administering anesthesia or sedation himself, and does not possess the ability to competently assess all risks attendant to the administration of general anesthesia or parenteral conscious sedation. Additionally, such a dentist is not able to competently assess whether a patient is an acceptable risk for anesthesia or sedation, or to react to medical complications that may arise, such as respiratory obstruction and arrest, allergic or idiosyncratic reaction to drugs, cardiac arrest, miocardial infarction, seizures, and hypertensive crises. Since general dentists without further training in anesthesia are not qualified to administer general anesthesia in their dental office, or treat resulting medical emergencies, they are also not qualified to supervise the administration of general anesthesia in their office. The educational training received by undergraduate dentists in accredited dental schools in the United States and Canada offers only a brief didactic exposure to general anesthesia and parenteral conscious sedation of about 48 classroom hours. Clinical training is not offered. It is only at the graduate level of training, internship or residency programs that dental schools are required to offer training in dealing with medical emergencies. The general dentist does not maintain the equipment necessary to deal with medical emergencies and life threatening occurrences. Life threatening medical emergencies can develop while a patient is under general anesthesia, and a dentist administering or supervising the administration of general anesthesia must be able to deal with such emergencies. Undergraduate dental schools devote less than twenty-one hours in their entire program to the handling and treatment of medical emergencies and the evaluation of patients, and this does not prepare a general dentist without further training to deal with such emergencies. Certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA) are licensed by the Board of Nursing as advanced registered nurse practitioners. According to Nursing Board Rule 210-11.22, Florida Administrative Code, amended June 18, 1985: 210-11.22 Functions of the Advanced Registered Nurse. All categories of Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner may perform functions listed in Section 464.012(3), F.S. The scope of practice for all categories of ARNPs shall include those functions which the ARNP has been educated to perform including the monitoring and altering of drug therapies, according to the established protocol and consistent with the practice setting. Specific activities which a CRNA may perform are enumerated in Section 464.012(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Supplement). However, Section 464.012(3) specifies that these activities must be within the framework of an established protocol and that a licensed medical doctor, osteopathic physician or dentist shall maintain supervision for directing the specific course of medical treatment on any patient. Thus, a CPNA is not authorized to work independently on patients, but must operate within established protocols and under supervision. In order to become a CRNA, a registered nurse with at least one year's clinical experience in critical care nursing has to graduate from a two year accredited nurse anesthetist program comprised of approximately 425 contact hours, and also conduct 450 administrations of anesthesia consisting of 800 hours of actual anesthesia time. Thus, a CRNA has more training and experience in the administration of anesthesia than a general dentist receives in undergraduate dental school. The proposed rules in question were adopted to preclude a general dentist from employing a CRNA to administer anesthesia in his office unless he has received training beyond undergraduate dental school in anesthesia and has obtained a permit from the Board. As expressed in the Purpose and Effect portion of the notice for these proposed rules: The effect of the proposed amendment will be further assurance that those dentists who are using anesthesia, and related forms of sedation, have met minimal standards designed to protect the public's health, safety and welfare . . . * * * The purpose of the proposed rules is to implement the provisions of Section 466.017 (3)(e), F.S., as enacted by the 1985 Florida Legislature. The rules are designed to insure that those dentists who utilize general anesthesia or parenteral conscious sedation in a dental office for dental patients on an outpatient basis meet certain minimum qualifications. It is the opinion of the Board that dentists who administer or supervise the administration of general anesthesia or parenteral conscious sedation on an outpatient basis must satisfy certain training, equipment, and staffing requirements prior to engaging in such activity. The effect of the proposed rules is the establishment of a permitting procedure, as well as the requirement that adverse occurrences resulting from the use of nitrous- oxide inhalation analgesia, parenteral conscious sedation, general anesthesia be reported. These new procedures and require- ments should enhance the protection of the public from-licensees who are otherwise not competent to use general anesthesia, parenteral conscious sedation, or nitrous- oxide inhalation analgesia. The Economic Impact Statement (EIS) accompanying these proposed rules states, in pertinent part that: The proposed amendment will have some economic impact upon those licensees who are currently authorized to use general anesthesia and parenteral sedation. Upon the effective date of these rules, these individuals will be required to pay a permit application fee as well as expend those funds necessary to bring their training, equipment, and staffing level up to the requirements of the proposed rules. The precise number of dentists to be affected by the proposals and the precise impact upon them, other than the permit application fee, is not known at this time. * * * The proposed rules should have an economic impact upon those dentists who currently admin- ister or supervise the administration of general anesthesia and parenteral conscious sedation. Although the proposed rules do not in any way affect a dentist's ability to utilize general anesthesia or parenteral conscious sedation in a hospital or other medical facility, the rules will require the dentist to obtain a permit and to maintain his office at certain equipment and staffing level. Aside from the permit appli- cation feed the precise economic impact upon those dentists who currently utilize general anesthesia or parenteral sedation is not known at this time. It is anticipated that any additional costs to the practitioner will be passed on to the consumer. The fact that patient costs might increase as a result of these proposed rules was supported by Petitioner's witnesses Ira Gunn and Barbara Quick, but neither witness offered any more detailed information about the economic impact of these proposed rules than is contained in the Economic Impact Statement. Further, Petitioner offered no evidence to show that the proposed rules would affect persons other than those referenced in the Economic Impact Statement. It has not been demonstrated that the Economic Impact Statement is either inadequate, misleading or inaccurate. The evidence in the record is insufficient to support a finding that Petitioner is a non-profit corporation registered in Florida and is composed of a majority of the licensed nurse anesthetists in Florida, that it is the only Florida association of general membership representing nurse anesthetists, or that many of its members will be substantially affected by these rules. There is no evidence of Petitioner's legal status, its purposes as reflected in any by-laws, its membership, or the number of members who will be substantially affected by the rules. Thus, Petitioner has not proven the allegations in its petition regarding its standing in this matter.
The Issue Validity of Respondent's policy that applicants to retake the examination administered for licensure as an optometrist must have passed all portions of the national board examination within five years prior to the filing of the application. This rule challenge arises under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. It was consolidated for purposes of hearing with another case involving the same parties, DOAH Case No. 84-2647, wherein Petitioner is seeking to have his application to retake part of the state examination for optometrists approved. In that case, the Petitioner has provisionally denied his request based on the policy being challenged as a rule in this proceeding. At the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf and called Mildred Gardner, Executive Director of the Board of Optometry, as a witness. Petitioner submitted 12 exhibits in evidence and the Respondent submitted one exhibit. The parties have submitted posthearing findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Samuel Scardino is an optometrist who is currently licensed as such in the states of California, Illinois, Kentucky, and Michigan. He graduated from the Illinois College of Optometry in 1978, and successfully passed all parts of the National Board of Optometry examination in the same year. He has been a practicing optometrist in Battle Creek, Michigan, since 1978. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) By application dated May 10, 1983, Petitioner applied to take the Florida optometry examination. His application was received by Respondent on May 13, 1983. Petitioner's application was approved pursuant to Respondent's Rule 21QER83-1 which amended Rule 21Q-4.01, Florida Administrative Code, on May 19, 1983, to provide that an applicant must have obtained a qualifying score on the national examination within five years prior or two years subsequent to the date of passage of the state examination. It also provided that a passing score of 75 must be obtained on the pharmacology section of the national examination in 1983, or subsequent thereto, within five years prior or two years subsequent to passage of the state examination. By letter of May 18, 1983, Respondent acknowledged receipt of Petitioner's application and $250.00 fee, but indicated that the application was incomplete in that a final transcript must be sent by his school, and also that the National Board report of passing grades within the past five years and the pharmacology section in 1983 with a score of 75 or above were required. Petitioner complied with these requirements and received an admission card for the optometry examination to be held in July of 1983. Petitioner took the examination at that time and received notice in September 1983 that he had failed the pharmacology/pathology portion of Part II of the examination with a grade of 61. A review of Petitioner's objections to the grade resulted in a further letter from Respondent, dated December 23, 1983, which advised Petitioner that the Board of Optometry review committee had reviewed the matter and changed his final grade for the pharmacology/pathology portion of the examination from 61 to 65, but that a final grade of 70 percent or better was required to achieve a passing status. He was thereupon advised of his right to a hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, 5-8, Respondent's Exhibit 1) On March 19, 1984, Petitioner filed an application for optometry reexamination with the Respondent, together with the $250.00 reexamination fee. The state application form for reexamination did not ask for any information concerning the National Board of Optometry examination, as did the original application form. Respondent's Rule 21Q-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to reexamination, provided pertinently as follows: 21A-4.02 Reexamination.-- An applicant who fails either Part I or Part II of the state examination for licensure shall be required to retake only that part of the examination on which he failed to achieve a passing grade, provided that the applicant shall be limited to two retakes within a two year period from the date of original failure. If the applicant fails to achieve a passing grade as provided above, he shall be required to take the complete state examination for licensure in order to be entitled to be licensed as an optometrist. Reexamination shall be conditioned on payment of the reexamination fee. Respondent advised Petitioner by an undated letter which he received on April 7, 1984, that his National Board scores were no longer valid to take the Florida examination since they had been obtained more than five years prior to his application to take the 1984 examination. The letter further stated that 1983 was his last year of eligibility for examination under his 1978 National Board scores and that he had not been successful in his 1983 Florida examination. The letter enclosed an application for refund of his $250.00 fee for the 1984 examination. Petitioner thereafter spoke with the Executive Director of the Board of Optometry who indicated that the card would be evaluating his and other questions of candidates at their May 4, 1984 meeting. (Testimony of Petitioner, Gardner, Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 9, 11) The minutes of a meeting of the Board of Optometry on May 3, 1984, contains the following item: Examination 1984 - After discussion with Board Counsel, the Board reiterated that Examination candidates must have passed all parts of the National Board within 5 years prior to application to take the Florida examination in order that all candidates who pass the Florida examination are immediately eligible to apply for licen sure. Any candidate who applies to retake the Florida examination must also meet the requirements of passing the National Board within 5 years of applying to retake the Florida examination. All requirements of 21Q-4.01 apply to all candidates and no waiver of requirements shall be granted. Motion by Dr. Walker, seconded by Mrs. Chambers. Passed unanimously. The Board's Executive Director advised Petitioner of the action taken by the Board in a letter of May 14, 1984. He was also informed by this letter that if he completed the National Board requirements prior to the 1985 examination and applied for such examination, he would be required only to take the practical portion of Part II of the Florida examination, but that if he were not licensed in 1985, he would be required to take the entire Florida examination. After receiving the letter, Petitioner submitted his application for refund of the $250.00 reexamination fee which was approved on April 4, 1984 and thereafter paid to Petitioner. By Petition dated June 19, 1984, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to contest the Respondent's denial of his application to retake the Florida optometry examination which was scheduled for August 1984. The instant rule challenge was subsequently filed in September 1984. (Testimony of Petitioner, Gardner, Petitioner's Exhibit 10) The policy statement announced by the Board at its May 3, 1984, meeting that applicants for reexamination must have passed the National Board examination within a period of five years prior to such application was first applied in 1984 and was uniformly applied to all applicants for reexamination who had not taken the National Board examination within the requisite period prior to application. (Testimony of Gardner)
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documented evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In General Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0016786. On February 27, 1984, Florida Medical license of the Respondent was suspended for a period of one year in Department of Professional Regulation vs. Teotimo D. Bonzon, M.D., Case Number 82-799. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was the primary care physician for Mary T. Upton, a patient with a history of bronchial asthma. Valium On January 11, 1985 the patient, Mary T. Upton, developed onset of acute respiratory distress and was seen by the Respondent, first in his office and then as an outpatient. On the second occasion, Respondent gave the patient valium, a Schedule IV Controlled Substance. On January 12, 1985, Upton was admitted to Methodist Hospital of Jacksonville, Florida, with a complaint of Acute Asthmatic Bronchitis. Bronchial Asthma is a condition that affects the respiratory drive. Valium relaxes the muscles and sedates the central nervous system and respiratory drive of a person and, as such, is not a drug to be administered in an outpatient setting under the circumstances that Respondent administered valium to Upton. Theo-Dur After admission and initial treatment, the patient continued to experience respiratory distress, and the Respondent was notified. Respondent ordered the drug Theo-Dur to be given orally. This was after Upton was given Theophylline, but before she was stabilized on Theophylline. Theo-Dur is a long sustained action form of Theophylline, which takes twelve hours to have an appreciable affect and, as such, is used primarily for maintenance and should not be used in acute situations such as Upton's until the patient is stabilized. Theophylline At the time Upton was admitted to the hospital on January 12, 1985 and Respondent started her on Aminophylline (also called Theophylline I.V.), Respondent was aware of Upton's previous use of medication containing Theophylline for her asthma condition and that she had a prescription to obtain such medication. Although Respondent was aware of Upton's previous use of medication containing Theophylline, Respondent did not inquire of Upton, or in any other manner determine, if she had ingested any form of Theophylline before administering the Aminophylline I.V. upon admission to the hospital on January 12, 1985. Upton had taken Theophylline before the Theophylline I.V. was administered. It is the recognized standard of care for a physician to obtain the level of Theophylline in the patient's body before administering Theophylline and, to periodically check the level of Theophylline to assure the best therapeutic level is achieved. Upton was on the hospital floor at approximately 11:20 a.m. on January 12, 1985 and the first time a physician ordered the Theophylline level checked was between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on January 12, 1985 after Respondent consulted with Dr. Libao. Before the Theophylline level was checked, Respondent had already administered Theo-Dur. Toxicity of Theophylline occurs when the content of the blood exceeds 20 milligrams per 100cc and any level over the 20 milligrams per 100cc may cause the patient to have gastrointestinal side affects such as nausea, vomiting and nervousness which may be life threatening. Respondent's failure to monitor the Theophylline level resulted in the patient receiving a toxic level of 24 milligrams per 100cc of Theophylline; however, there was no evidence that Upton suffered any side affects. D. Thoracostomy On January 17, 1985, routine chest x-rays confirmed a pneumothorax in Upton's left lung which was reported to the Respondent by the radiologist, Dr. Victor Saenz, by telephone between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on January 17, 1985. Without reviewing the x-rays, Respondent proceeded to treat the left pneumothorax with a chest tub (or Thoracostomy) in Upton's right lung. There was sufficient time to review the x-rays since the Thoracostomy was not performed until between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on January 17, 1985. Respondent did not order follow-up x-rays the day of the surgery to determine the effectiveness of the surgery. It is accepted medical practice for the physician, particularly a surgeon who performs an invasive procedure such as a thoracostomy, to order x- rays immediately following the surgery to make sure the procedure is working By placing the chest tub in the wrong side of the lung, Respondent created a situation wherein another pneumothorax might occur; however, by removing the chest tub from the right lung and placing it in the left lung alleviated this possibility. Respondent failed to realize that the chest tub had been placed in the wrong side of the lung (the right side) until the morning of January 18, 1985 when he was advised by the nurse that Upton had a pneumothorax on the left side rather than the right side where the chest tub had been placed by Respondent. Respondent's error was discovered as a result of routine x-rays performed by Dr. Walkett at 7:45 a.m. on January 18, 1985, the day following surgery. These follow-up x-rays also revealed Subcutaneous Emphysema throughout Upton's chest. Placing the chest tub in the right lung will not re-expand the left lung. Upon being informed of his error, Respondent proceeded to the hospital and removed the chest tub from Upton's right lung and placed it in her left lung. As a result of Respondent's error, Upton's heart beat increased around 3:00 a.m. on January 18, 1985 causing cardiac distress. Allergies At the time of the patient's admission it was noted that she was allergic to iodine. However, Respondent having treated Upton for some time prior to this admission, had knowledge that she was not allergic to iodine. Prior to the Thoracostomy and Tracheostomy, Respondent used Betadine scrub on Upton. Betadine contains iodine. Other solutions are readily available at Methodist Hospital that are not iodine-based. Tracheostomy On January 17, 1985 at or about the same time he performed the Thoracostomy, the Respondent performed a surgical procedure known as a Tracheostomy on Upton. Following the Tracheostomy, performed by the Respondent, the patient's condition did not improve and she continued to experience complications, including Subcutaneous Emphysema. Subcutaneous Emphysema occurs when air pockets form under the patient's fat tissue layer which cause swelling and can compromise the patient. On January 18, 1985, the Respondent's temporary admitting and consultation privileges at Methodist Hospital were suspended in a letter from Dr. Wallace Walkett, the president of the Medical and Dental Staff. The treatment of Upton was turned over to other physicians. Dr. Frederick Vontz, a Board Certified Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgeon was called in by Dr. Walklett to repair the problems with Upton's trachea. When Dr. Vontz first saw Upton she was in moderate to severe distress and her body was swollen from the Subcutaneous Emphysema. On January 26, 1985, Dr. Vontz performed a Bronchoscopy on Upton that showed granulation tissue, which is scar tissue that may be an obstacle to breathing. The cause of this granulation tissue was the tracheostomy procedure performed by Respondent. Due to Upton's difficulty in breathing and the continuing Subcutaneous Emphysema, she was taken to the operating room on January 31, 1985. In the operating room, Dr. Vontz discovered a tear in the trachea that extended to six and one-half centimeters above the carina. Dr. Vontz also discovered that the air causing the Subcutaneous Emphysema was escaping from a false channel in the trachea. The damage to the posterior wall of the patient's trachea was caused by the improper tracheostomy procedure performed by Respondent on January 17, 1985. Upton died at 12:00 noon on March 6, 1985 and, although there is evidence that the tear in Upton's trachea may have contributed to Upton's death, there is insufficient evidence to show that it was clearly the sole cause of Upton's death. The record is clear that the level of care, skill and treatment provided Upton by the Respondent, fell below that which would be recognized as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances by a prudent similar physician.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and Rule 21M- 20.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order suspending the Respondent, Teotimo D. Bonzon's license to practice medicine in the state of Florida for a period of two (2) years with condition for reinstatement determined by the Board as it deems appropriate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-3022 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner In General 1.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-4. Valium 1.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 8, 7 and 6, respectively. Theo-Dur 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Theophylline 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 13, respectively. 3.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 16. 7.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 17, respectively. Thoracostomy 1.-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 7.-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. 15.-l6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Allergies 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. 3. Rejected as not being material or relevant. Tracheostomy 1.-9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31-39 Unnecessary in reaching a conclusion in this case. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 12.-13. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent A. General 1.-3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 1 and 4, respectively. B. The Use of Betadine 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but clarified. Theophylline Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13 that Respondent had ordered Theophylline intravenously before checking the Theophylline level in the patient. Theo-Dur Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Valium Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Thoracostomy Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18-27, otherwise rejected. Tracheostomy Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 32 and 33, but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. The first sentence and the first phrase of the second sentence are adopted in Findings of Fact 38 and 39. The balance is rejected as being a restatement of testimony rather than a finding of fact. However, even if the last sentence was stated as a finding of fact, it would be rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: MARK A. SIERON, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 855 ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32067 JOHN R. WEED, ESQUIRE 605 SOUTH JEFFERSON STREET PERRY, FLORIDA 32347 STEPHANIE A. DANIEL, ESQUIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 KENNETH D. EASLEY, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 DOROTHY FAIRCLOTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF MEDICINE 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing score on the Physical Diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that develops, administers, scores, and reports scores for licensure examinations, such as the examination at issue in this proceeding. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine is created as a part of Respondent by Section 460.404(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 456.013(4), Florida Statutes, this Recommended Order is to be forwarded to the Board of Chiropractic Medicine, which will enter a final order. Section 460.406(1), Florida Statutes, provides that anyone seeking licensure as a chiropractic physician must pass a licensure examination. The Florida Chiropractic Medicine Licensure Examination consists of two portions: (a) a practical examination and (b) a Florida Laws and Rules examination. The practical examination is further subdivided into three areas: (a) interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films (the X-ray portion), (b) physical diagnosis, and (c) technique. A candidate cannot be licensed as a chiropractic physician until he or she has passed all portions of the licensure examination, including the physical diagnosis portion. In May 2001, Petitioner sat only for the physical diagnosis portion, having passed all other portions in a prior examination. The physical diagnosis section is a practical examination that tests a candidate's competency to choose, name, demonstrate, and interpret diagnostic imaging and laboratory reports based on a hypothetical case history. The examination generally presents a case history, including the patient's complaint and vital signs, then asks a series of questions designed to lead to a diagnosis. The examination also asks some separate, stand-alone questions designed to elicit knowledge of specific techniques, such as how to obtain particular diagnostic imaging views. The physical diagnosis section of the May 2001 examination consisted of 26 tasks, for which varying numbers of points were awarded for correct answers. Two examiners evaluated the candidate's performance and independently awarded scores for each task. Petitioner's overall score was the average of the two examiners' scores. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section met the criteria for selection as examiners. An examiner must have been licensed in Florida as a chiropractor for at least five years, must not have had a chiropractic or other health care license suspended, revoked, or otherwise acted against, and must not be currently under investigation by the Department or any other state or federal agency. Rule 64B2-11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department requires each examiner to attend a training session prior to administration of the examination. The training is designed to ensure that scoring standards are uniform and objective among the various examiners. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section had successfully completed the training session. The first series of questions on the physical diagnosis section dealt with a female patient in her early thirties whose main complaint was constant, severe pain in her left calf. The patient's temperature was slightly elevated at 99.8ºF, and she had swelling in her left ankle. Ultimately, the candidate was expected to arrive at a diagnosis of thrombophlebitis, inflammation of a vein in the left calf. Tasks 1 and 2, for which Petitioner received full credit, required the candidate to obtain a case history from the patient and to discuss the physical examination the candidate would perform on the patient. Task 3 asked the candidate to identify what laboratory tests or diagnostic procedures, if any, should be used to assist in arriving at a diagnosis. Task 4 asked the candidate to state his reasoning for choosing these tests. The correct answer to Task 3 was that the candidate should order either an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) test or a C-reactive protein (CRP) test. The correct answer to Task 4 was that the ESR and CRP assess the inflammatory processes that the candidate should suspect in the patient's left calf. On Task 3, Petitioner responded that he would order a complete blood count (CBC) and a urinalysis. On Task 4, Petitioner responded that he chose these tests because the patient's increased temperature indicated that there might be an infection present, and that a CBC and urinalysis are useful tests for infection. Task 3 was worth a maximum of four points. Task 4 was worth a maximum of three points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 3 and for Task 4. The results of the physical examination, particularly "Homan's sign," or pain in the calf with dorsiflexion of the foot, caused Petitioner to suspect thrombophlebitis. Petitioner knew of no laboratory test that returns a specific positive result for thrombophlebitis. He introduced textbook references to establish that the ESR and CRP tests are not specific to diagnosing thrombophlebitis. Petitioner did not believe that Tasks 3 and 4 gave him the option of ordering no laboratory tests at all, so he chose the most common tests that would at least confirm that no infection was present. Dr. Densmore, Respondent's expert, agreed with Petitioner that a positive Homan's sign is specific for diagnosing thrombophlebitis. However, he disagreed with Petitioner's choice of ordering a CBC and urinalysis. Dr. Densmore admitted that many doctors order these tests as a general standard for all patients, but stated that in this case they would do nothing to narrow the diagnosis. The CBC and urinalysis are useful for identifying infections; thrombophlebitis is an inflammatory disease, not an infectious disease. Dr. Densmore conceded that ESR and CRP are not specific to thrombophlebitis. However, Dr. Densmore believed that Petitioner should have chosen ESR or CRP because inflammation is present in 90 percent of thrombophlebitis cases and therefore those tests would assist the practitioner in arriving at a diagnosis. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for his answer to Tasks 3 and 4 because his answers were not the best answers to those questions. The correct answers set forth by the Department were supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Task 5 dealt with the same patient discussed above, and asked the candidate to indicate which, if any, diagnostic imaging procedures should be performed. The correct answer, worth four points, was "none" or "A-P & lateral leg." "A-P" stands for anteroposterior, or from the front to the back. On the videotape of the examination, Petitioner appeared confused by the question. He said that he would x-ray the "lower leg." One of the examiners asked him to be more specific as to which views he would take. Petitioner stated that he would x-ray the ankle because of the swelling there. Petitioner then mentioned the swelling in the calf, and stated that he would x-ray the "femur." The femur is the thigh bone, extending from the pelvis to the knee. An x-ray of the femur obviously would reveal nothing about the condition of the patient's calf. The examiner, likely sensing Petitioner's confusion, advised Petitioner to read the question again. Petitioner read the question aloud, then reiterated that he would take x-rays of the patient's ankle and femur. Task 5 was worth a maximum of four points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 5. Petitioner contended that he should have received partial credit for his initial response that he would x-ray the lower leg. However, Task 5 required the candidate to identify the specific views of the x-rays he would take. When the examiner asked him to name the specific views, Petitioner identified the femur. The context of the discussion makes it evident that Petitioner must have been thinking of the fibula or the tibia, i.e., the bones of the lower leg, when he repeatedly named the femur in connection with the patient's calf pain. However, the examiners had no choice but to grade Petitioner on the answer he actually gave. Petitioner should not be awarded any points for his answer to Task 5. Task 18 was a stand-alone question dealing with x- rays. The challenged portion of Task 18, worth two points, asked the candidate what he would do to obtain a quality lumbar spine x-ray of a severely obese patient if his office was equipped with a 300/125 x-ray machine. One of the examiners specified that this patient weighs around 500 pounds. The correct answer was that the candidate would use a higher capacity x-ray machine or refer the patient to a facility that has one. Petitioner's answer was that he would collimate close to the area of injury, decrease milliampere seconds (mAs), increase kilovolt peak (kVp) to increase penetration, and use a rare earth screen. Again, Petitioner appeared to be confused by the question. At the hearing, he testified that Task 18 did not ask what specific view he would take of the obese patient, whether of the arm, the chest, or the skull. Petitioner misread the question. Task 18 clearly states that the required view is of the patient's lumbar spine. Petitioner's misreading of the question led him to treat Task 18 as an x-ray physics question, hence his response, intended to demonstrate how he would maximize the clarity of an x-ray using the equipment at hand. Dr. Densmore stated that an x-ray of a patient this size taken on this equipment would simply be a white picture because of the amount of fatty tissue involved. With a patient of this size, the kVp would have to be increased so much that the practitioner would over-radiate the patient. The practitioner would have no choice but to send the patient out for an x-ray on a higher capacity machine. The examiners independently awarded Petitioner zero points for his response to this portion of Task 18. Their scoring was correct, supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Petitioner alleged that the Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) provided him by the Department did not adequately prepare him for format changes that occurred since his first sitting for the examination. Petitioner compared the CIB for the May 2001 examination to that for the November 2001 examination. He found that the detailed sample questions in the November 2001 CIB more closely reflected the examination he took in May 2001, and contended that the May 2001 CIB was outdated at the time it was distributed. All candidates for the May 2001 examination received the same Candidate Information Booklet that Petitioner received. Respondent's psychometrician, Dr. Linda Dean, testified that the passing rate for the May 2001 examination was in the range of 70 percent, consistent with other administrations of the examination. Petitioner's allegation concerning the adequacy of the CIB is not supported by the evidence. Petitioner also alleged that he was placed at a disadvantage by the fact that the examiners appeared to know that he was not taking the examination for the first time. Both Dr. Dean, the psychometrician assigned to the chiropractic licensure examination, and Dr. Densmore, who has served as an examiner many times, testified that examiners are not told the names or the status of the candidates. Dr. Dean testified that nothing is done to segregate first-time candidates from those who are retaking the examination, though an examiner may suspect that a candidate who is sitting for only one section of the examination is retaking that section. Even if Petitioner's allegation were credited, it would not change the result. Petitioner's responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 were incorrect. The examiners properly awarded him zero points for those tasks. Their knowledge that he was retaking the physical diagnosis section had no bearing on Petitioner's incorrect responses to the challenged tasks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order denying Petitioner additional credit for his responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination administered in May 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Allan Niebrugge 4785 Barkley Circle No. 22 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed by the State of Florida as a Clinical Laboratory Technician. Petitioner applied to the Respondent for licensure as a Clinical Laboratory Technologist with specialties in microbiology, serology, clinical chemistry, hematology, immunohematology and chemistry. On February 11, 1980, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for a technologist's license for the reason that Petitioner does not have the sixty semester hours or HEW exam required under Section 10D-41.25(9) or (10), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner holds a high school equivalency diploma. Petitioner attended the Manhattan Medical Assistants' School in 1960-1961 and graduated from that school, receiving a diploma as a Laboratory Technologist. When Petitioner attempted to obtain a transcript of his studies at that school, he discovered that the school is no longer in business; and, accordingly, he is unable to obtain a transcript reflecting his studies there. Petitioner does not have a bachelor's degree from an a"credited college or university. Through the years, Petitioner has taken a number of continuing education courses, but these courses have not been affiliated with an accredited college or university. Prior to moving to Florida, petitioner was employed for seventeen years as a Laboratory Technologist at the New Rochelle Hospital Medical Center and was a supervisor of the evening and night shifts at that Center. Petitioner's witnesses testified as to the quality of Petitioner's work as an employee of the Department of Pathology at South Miami Hospital. Petitioner has taken the U. S. Public Health Service proficiency examination in clinical laboratory technology. A satisfactory score on all sections of that examination must be obtained in order to Pass the examination. Petitioner passed each section of the examination except for the hematology section. He attempted to retake the examination but was advised that the March 30, 1979, examination was the last test scheduled by HEW. That examination has been administered on five different occasions between the years 1975 and 1979. There is no information available as to whether the HEW examination will or will not ever be administered again. That examination is not the same as the licensure examination given by the Respondent but can act as a prerequisite, if satisfactorily completed, to the state licensure examination. An approved course of study is available to Petitioner at Miami-Dade Community College. Personnel at that school have advised him that he would receive thirty-two credits for his life's work and that he would be required to take six or seven examinations plus approximately a year's worth of courses. Petitioner does not desire to attend that college even on a part-time basis several times a week, since he is employed at two full-time jobs at this time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for a technologist's license pursuant to the provisions of The Florida Clinical Laboratory Law. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Collins Building Room 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard N. Krinzian, Esquire 8585 Sunset Drive, Suite 190 Miami, Florida 33143 Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Department of Public Health 1350 N.W. 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Mr. Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Dr. Esteban Valdes-Castillo, a Board- certified psychiatrist, was the Medical Director of Progressive Health Center, Inc. Blanche Lear, a psychiatric social worker, was an employee of the Center. Between 1978 and August, 1981, Petitioner paid Respondent $45,627.16 in Medicaid payments for counseling ser- vices rendered by Blanche Lear. A two-way mirror was located in the common wall between Lear's and Valdes-Castillo's offices. Of the Medicaid recipients counseled by Lear, Valdes-Castillo did not meet, interview, counsel or even observe all of the patients for whom payments were made to the Center by Petitioner. Further, Valdes-Castillo only observed Lear's coun- seling sessions approximately once a month over the time period involved and then only upon the specific request of Lear to observe a specific patient for a specific reason.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by Petitioner directing Respondent Progressive Health Center, Inc., to reimburse to Petitioner the amount of $45,627.16. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Medicaid Program Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 233 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Michael Sara, Esquire 2153 Coral Way, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33145 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
